Bishop Juan A. Edghill in a letter to the Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Broadcasting, Evan Persaud, said that “misleading and inflammatory statements and unsubstantiated allegations” were made by Anthony Vieira on the programme ‘Commentary’ broadcast on CNS Channel 6 on May 4 at 12:30 hrs.
Bishop Edghill asserted that according to the Guyana Post and Telegraph Act, Chapter 47:01, Regulation 23A, his considered view is “that the licensee acted in contravention of the said Act. . . when it allowed the said programme to be aired on its station.”
In the letter, Bishop Edghill said “there can be no excuse on the part of the licensee that they were unaware of the content, ‘because it was a live programme’,” and Vieira in the said commentary indicated that he had written it two months before it was aired but had problems with its recording.
According to Edghill, “the fact that it was recorded then aired indicates that it was presumptuous, calculated and done with the intent to cause harm even though the licensee is aware of possible sanctions.”
Edghill said further that without presenting in the letter a “full analysis of the content of this inflammatory broadcast,” he would point out “some of the statements that fell way below what could be considered ‘acceptable standards’.”
Edghill then listed certain statements allegedly made by Vieira in the commentary as being “inaccurate, unsubstantiated and misleading.”
Edghill said that the statements “are inaccurate, untrue and were designed to damage my reputation.” He cited statements such as `Edghill is financed by Jagdeo’, `Edghill is a henchman for Jagdeo’, `Edghill has been incarcerated for murder and has changed his birth name’ and `Edghill has accepted as a bribe – the Inter Religious Channel’. In the commentary aired on CNS Channel 6, Edghill wrote, the content can create confusion among various religious groups and denominations.
“Further, there is also an attempt to put divisions among the various denominations of the Christian faith by putting various leaders under the microscope and a threat to mete out to them similar treatment of public disgrace as meted out to me by way of this commentary,” Edghill stated in his letter to the ACB.
Edghill also claimed that in the commentary an accusation against a swami “is designed to create offensive feelings to a large section of the public… and can lead to public disorder and religious conflicts.”
Edghill concluded his letter by saying that there is “sufficient basis for the severest form of sanctions to be taken against CNS Channel 6, which according to the ACB regulations, are suspension or revocation of the licence. “I pray that you will carry out your statutory responsibility with due care and a sense of responsibility,” Edghill added.
CNS Channel 6 has been taken before the ACB on previous occasions most famously when a caller on one of its programmes issued a threat against President Bharrat Jagdeo. The channel was eventually suspended from the air by the ACB for four months.
